If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I disagree with what he said but I understand his stance. People die everyday for many reasons and dying is a natural thing. Treating illnesses can be the same as preventing death. Sometimes its not feasible to preserve someone's life anymore, that is why DNAR forms exist. If I were him, I would argue from a point that over 99% people of working age(up to 65) should be able to afford healthcare. The last 1% are more likely above 65, non-working or dependents who would very likely die of another illness to begin with, that being said, their insurance will be much more expensive than working people of a younger age.

The delusion that a free healthcare system is great is only prevalent in a country without a free healthcare system. The grass is always greener on the other side. Private healthcare allows many healthcare options for 99% of people at different competitive prices. Public healthcare on the otherhand requires money and would lead to another increase in taxes. UK taxes are insanely high. The good doctors are stuck in public healthcare because that is the only way they can progress in their career. However, for the rich, there is no discrimination and nobody pays, however, the rich man who is willing to pay 10x to jump the queue will now only pay a few hundred pounds because the new private healthcare is so much cheaper(its competing with free healthcare for business after all). Free healthcare is also prone to abuse which raises the costs of healthcare to unsustainable levels, like the NHS. It also raises demand to unexpected levels and look, the queues are now inadvertently longer and even the rich who are willing to pay are denied treatment due to lack of availability.

Many rich people are paying 40% tax(which is a ridiculous amount of money) for no increase in benefit in their healthcare and also lack of the most advanced forms of treatment in the country. They squabble that they should not be paying for others who do not pay as much and yet get the same treatment. When they themselves are short of treatment options, how many of them will scorn the free healthcare system?

In the end, it comes down to a supply and demand problem and the only reason why healthcare is so expensive in a private setting is because there is lack of supply. Once you give that supply to the masses, it comes back to square one, people WILL STILL BE denied healthcare and now you are denying working people who will actually fund the healthcare their own treatment. Its ridiculous. Don't commit the same mistake. Look at the supply and demand first. In a field with low supply and high demand, you want to jack up demand? Are you crazy!?

The delusion that a free healthcare system is great is only prevalent in a country without a free healthcare system.

I vehemently appose this statement. The US system has failed so utterly to so many people I don't know where to start. The US spends a lot more per capita then any other country in the world on healthcare and has done so for years.

Spin all you want, but the fact is that this is bad news for a candidate. It's unclear whether he believed what he said (misinformed), is deliberately is lying about them (for personal gain probably), or just spoken before getting the facts (egomaniac). Either way, it sounds bad.

If he had said that it's unclear whether saving those lives justify the burden to society, then that would be the argument you'd advancing. But the fact is that he actually denied there being lives lost due to lack of public healthcare...

-----

edit: what Giggles said. It seems that the only ones benefitting from the US healthcare are the rich and those on the supply side.

I vehemently appose this statement. The US system has failed so utterly to so many people I don't know where to start. The US spends a lot more per capita then any other country in the world on healthcare and has done so for years.

Originally Posted by Alaris

edit: what Giggles said. It seems that the only ones benefitting from the US healthcare are the rich and those on the supply side.

Yup and yup.

Most of us don't actually mind paying for healthcare. What we mind is that the monthly fees can be EXTREMELY expensive (at my last job, it cost me over $300 a month) and insurance companies can decide to drop you / not cover you if you need to use the service they are supposed to provide. Healthcare in this country is a scam, but it's a scam you can't really afford not to fall in to.

Spin all you want, but the fact is that this is bad news for a candidate. It's unclear whether he believed what he said (misinformed), is deliberately is lying about them (for personal gain probably), or just spoken before getting the facts (egomaniac). Either way, it sounds bad.

If he had said that it's unclear whether saving those lives justify the burden to society, then that would be the argument you'd advancing. But the fact is that he actually denied there being lives lost due to lack of public healthcare...

-----

edit: what Giggles said. It seems that the only ones benefitting from the US healthcare are the rich and those on the supply side.

Yes, and I do not agree with him, but his stance. Either way, no one should or will(if they have any sense) vote for him.

Originally Posted by Giggles

I vehemently appose this statement. The US system has failed so utterly to so many people I don't know where to start. The US spends a lot more per capita then any other country in the world on healthcare and has done so for years.

Money is not the same as supply. Say I have 100 potatoes to feed 1000 people, I can cut the potatoes into chips and fry them or just tell people to boil them, which is significantly cheaper. However, it does not change the fact that there are not enough potatoes to feed everyone. Just because you spend more does not mean you have enough to supply your population, in other words, you face the difficulty of determining to what extent should people be allowed to die and refused treatment. Money is a relatively good tool in this case, because it allows sustainability of the healthcare system. No matter how many potatoes you have, it will do little good to eat them raw.

Yes, and I do not agree with him, but his stance. Either way, no one should or will(if they have any sense) vote for him.

Ok, this is something I can agree on.

The stance against public healthcare is valid when it comes to not wanting to support the poor. Some people are more "survival of the fittest" than others. I oppose it personally, and I consider it very anti-christian, but ...

Originally Posted by Kael Valeran

However, it does not change the fact that there are not enough potatoes to feed everyone.

Not enough doctors to treat the patients? Good point.

However, if less money is spent on medication (because they're vastly over-paying those atm) and scam insurance (who can then choose not to pay for healthcare), perhaps that money can be sent to helping doctors be more efficient, or for educating more of them, or something.

Even adding more nurses into the system would do a lot of good as far as the poor are concerned.